I'm really not happy with the 6,000 year old earth idea. I'm a Christian and I believe in creation 100%. I accept true science 100% as well. Clearly, science shows that the earth is older than 6,000 years and the Bible doesn't contradict this view. The wording in Genesis allows for a much older earth.

I'm really not happy with the 6,000 year old earth idea. I'm a Christian and I believe in creation 100%. I accept true science 100% as well. Clearly, science shows that the earth is older than 6,000 years and the Bible doesn't contradict this view. The wording in Genesis allows for a much older earth.

I'm just curious why your profile says private when you are a Christian. You know there is a Christian option, right?

Just as a side note, I think this thread belongs in the "Young Earth vs Old Earth" section, rather than the "Creation vs Evolution" section.

revelation: How does the wording in Genesis allow for a much older earth? Are you employing the Gap-Theory? Day-Age Theory? Something else? Be more specific. Where does an old earth fit into Genesis in your estimation?

I believed in an old earth until I was over 30 years old. I had never been exposed to any young earth arguments until that time. When I looked at the scientific evidence from both sides, it became very apparent to me that I had been left in the dark on the evidence against an old earth for my entire public school education, from kindergarten through earning a BS in electrical engineering by age 21. Not once had I ever been told by any educator that Carbon 14 posed a virtually insurmountable problem for an old earth view. I was never told of the numerous clocks that contradicted the old earth position. I wasn't very happy to come to the realization that I had been brainwashed for such a long time. Bottom line for me personally - it was the powerful scientific evidence against an old earth that helped renew my interest in the Bible and ultimately convinced me that Genesis could be trusted as literal history.

Let's start with just one for now, the C14 problem. Are you familiar with the science behind this argument, and why it represents powerful evidence against an old earth?

I was always taught that the earth was old, but one thing I didn't realize was that we should never confuse education "indoctrination" with critical analysis "baloney detector". They are two completely different things. So I began to research dating methods.

Both, because you can't have theology without science - The Creator is the greatest scientist. But I'm really interested in the Genesis account and the age of the earth.

I completely agree with you. A literal approach to the Genesis account if you look carefully at the wording, could involve an old earth and yet biological life created about 6500 years ago. Evolutionist timeframes are completely out, yet the earth's bedrock underneath fossils could easily be older than 6500 years without contradicting scripture. The bedrock of earth could be 7000 years old? a million years old? Who knows but scripture is clear the formless earth was created before light was created, and the appearance of light resulted in the first day. If the first day started with the night the YEC's would have a point that the darkness was the night of the first day. But the first day started with the light and with it the approaching evening and so the darkness occurred before the first day.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.......................And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day

I completely agree with you. A literal approach to the Genesis account if you look carefully at the wording, could involve an old earth and yet biological life created about 6500 years ago. Evolutionist timeframes are completely out, yet the earth's bedrock underneath fossils could easily be older than 6500 years without contradicting scripture. The bedrock of earth could be 7000 years old? a million years old? Who knows but scripture is clear the formless earth was created before light was created, and the appearance of light resulted in the first day. If the first day started with the night the YEC's would have a point that the darkness was the night of the first day. But the first day started with the light and with it the approaching evening and so the darkness occurred before the first day.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.......................And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day

Interestingly enough, lava or volcanic ash in layers close to fossils are often used to determine the age of fossils, and since 50 year old lava dates to millions of years, this particular "time clock" is apparently NOT reset by flowing out of the earth and hardening like it is imagined to. Ponderous.

Just as a side note, I think this thread belongs in the "Young Earth vs Old Earth" section, rather than the "Creation vs Evolution" section.

revelation: How does the wording in Genesis allow for a much older earth? Are you employing the Gap-Theory? Day-Age Theory? Something else? Be more specific. Where does an old earth fit into Genesis in your estimation?

Genesis opens with the statement ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ Many Bible scholars agree this verse describes an action separate from the creative days. Thus the Bible does not state the age of the earth. As for the length of each ‘creative day’ the Hebrew word translated ‘day’ can mean various lengths of time. At Genesis 2:4 Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. Also, on the first creative day God called light Day and the darkness night – only a portion of the period was called Day. There is no indication that the ‘creative days’ were 24 hours long.

Interestingly enough, lava or volcanic ash in layers close to fossils are often used to determine the age of fossils, and since 50 year old lava dates to millions of years, this particular "time clock" is apparently NOT reset by flowing out of the earth and hardening like it is imagined to. Ponderous.

I believed in an old earth until I was over 30 years old. I had never been exposed to any young earth arguments until that time. When I looked at the scientific evidence from both sides, it became very apparent to me that I had been left in the dark on the evidence against an old earth for my entire public school education, from kindergarten through earning a BS in electrical engineering by age 21. Not once had I ever been told by any educator that Carbon 14 posed a virtually insurmountable problem for an old earth view. I was never told of the numerous clocks that contradicted the old earth position. I wasn't very happy to come to the realization that I had been brainwashed for such a long time. Bottom line for me personally - it was the powerful scientific evidence against an old earth that helped renew my interest in the Bible and ultimately convinced me that Genesis could be trusted as literal history.

Let's start with just one for now, the C14 problem. Are you familiar with the science behind this argument, and why it represents powerful evidence against an old earth?

Fred

I accept totally the massive flaws in C14 - but how does that prove a young earth?